nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Outlaw Pete

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why is this dumb sh1t still allowed to be posted?

An embryo is not a baby!

Most people refer to a developing human being in the womb as a baby. There is nothing "dumb" about it. Even medical professionals will.

For example, in the following clip the ultrasonographer says (at 1m:57s): "Nice healthy baby...":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

Here's another saying (at 12 seconds): "I'm gonna say the baby's laying transverse":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wydN7mhJOIg

The only people who seem to have a problem with it tend to be those who are fine with it being legal to take their life from them even when it is not medically necessary. Much easier to justify mistreating the more vulnerable in society when they have been dehumanized first. As of course, history has shown us many times.

GoneHome

Story for ye, my niece is 12 years old now, when she was born my sister and her partner had just bought a new house so asked the parish priest if he could say mass in their house just as a welcome for the baby and to bless the new house as well, he was having none of it because they weren't "married", christ almighty that was only in 2006, needless to say neither of them have gone to Mass since

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

..

Say, where is that 100 Euro you said you would donate to SSF? I still haven't received a confirmation from you.

Grayson

http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-ref-4051212-Jun2018/

This woman has brought a case against the childrens referendum. She stalled the referendum becoming law by years. I googled her name and she tried the same crap with the same sex marriage referendum.

_Dara_

Grayson wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-ref-4051212-Jun2018/

This woman has brought a case against the childrens referendum. She stalled the referendum becoming law by years. I googled her name and she tried the same crap with the same sex marriage referendum.

I’m guessing she was less successful in stalling the SSM legislation than the Children’s Ref?

Try_harder

Grayson wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-ref-4051212-Jun2018/

This woman has brought a case against the childrens referendum. She stalled the referendum becoming law by years. I googled her name and she tried the same crap with the same sex marriage referendum.

Knew that would happen- see how successful shell be- shell delay it anyway

gctest50

Grayson wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-ref-4051212-Jun2018/

This woman has brought a case against the childrens referendum. She stalled the referendum becoming law by years. I googled her name and she tried the same crap with the same sex marriage referendum.

She'll have bllod on her hands if she delays this one and some woman in Ireland gets into difficulty and dies

Still don't see why she and mattie and co should have an input to my oh's healthcare

iguana

Graces7 wrote: »

The cheering was appallingly inappropriate and offensive. What was being voted on WAS abortion. Sounded like a football crowd.

You know exactly why people were cheering. The people who were cheering have told you why they were cheering. You keep claiming the opposite. At this point Graces7 you are bearing false witness just so you can judge, going against two important tenets of your faith.

Overheal

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’m guessing she was less successful in stalling the SSM legislation than the Children’s Ref?

Don't think it was her

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/court-of-appeal-dismisses-two-challenges-against-same-sex-marriage-referendum-result-31416534.html

But I'm also pretty sure the courts set precedent against such claims, that July:

The court ruled the Government’s conduct – specifically using State monies to publish an unbalanced information campaign (breaching the McKenna principles) – did not impact on the outcome of the referendum.

The other appeals that happened after SSM were resolved in a couple months. I don't think the repeal of the 8th will be delayed by more than a matter of weeks tbh.

I liked this bit though,

The judge rejected further arguments that those members of the electorate who do not vote in referendums must be regarded as no voters.

Was that you, Shurimgreat?

Grayson

Overheal wrote: »

Don't think it was her

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/court-of-appeal-dismisses-two-challenges-against-same-sex-marriage-referendum-result-31416534.html

But I'm also pretty sure the courts set precedent against such claims, that July:

The other appeals that happened after SSM were resolved in a couple months. I don't think the repeal of the 8th will be delayed by more than a matter of weeks tbh.

I liked this bit though,

Was that you, Shurimgreat?

You're right. It was someone else with the SSM bill.

She lost a lot of money on the childrens bill though. How the hell can she afford it.
http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-supreme-court-costs-2202386-Jul2015/

Simi

Grayson wrote: »

You're right. It was someone else with the SSM bill.

She lost a lot of money on the childrens bill though. How the hell can she afford it.
http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-supreme-court-costs-2202386-Jul2015/

She probably simply didn't pay. If you lack the assets to cover the bill there's not really a whole lot they can do to recoup the money.

That's why the likes of Iona won't sue directly as they can be asset stripped. They always use a penniless proxy & pay the initial legal costs on their behalf.

Why they'd bother stalling at this point is beyond me. If it was a slimmer margin, I'd suspect they were trying to push implementation of the law out until after the next general election. But with a 2/3 majority in favour, no matter what the make up of the next Dail, I couldn't see them back tracking on what's been proposed.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Most people refer to a developing human being in the womb as a baby.

So what? Most people refer to boats as "her" and other feminie pronouns. It does not mean people actually think it is alive and female. Your argument is an empty linguistic one based on how people use language, rather than an intellectual one based on what that language ACTUALLY means.

And most of the time this is fine. We are humans, and we have a narrative driven view of the world and we have a narrative driven use of language. We tell stories to ourselves, and we use our language in a way that is congruent with those stories.

But sometimes there comes a time when what language actually means, and what implications the false use of language has, actually matters. And abortion and the fetus is very much one of those times. Because the use of language, and images are.... by people very much including yourself.... use in contrived ways to distort, mislead, and appeal to emotion where your intellect has failed to construct any relevant arguments. You can not argue that a fetus is actually a baby, so you have to show little pictures of fingers or obsess over moving tongues in order to try and get people to respond emotionally AS IF it is a baby and so bypass the monumental inconvenience that it actually really is not one.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Much easier to justify mistreating the more vulnerable in society when they have been dehumanized first. As of course, history has shown us many times.

Ah Godwinning the thread are we? No the issue here is not with dehumanizing anything. The issue is with you pretending something is meaningfully "Human" before it actually is, and then describing as "dehumanizing" any attempt to correct for that wanton and contrived little canard.

nozzferrahhtoo

Freethought Radio did an episode on the Referendum. Can skip forward to 5:45 as the first 5 and a half minutes is not relevant.

iguana

Simi wrote: »

Why they'd bother stalling at this point is beyond me. If it was a slimmer margin, I'd suspect they were trying to push implementation of the law out until after the next general election. But with a 2/3 majority in favour, no matter what the make up of the next Dail, I couldn't see them back tracking on what's been proposed.

My impression of Iona, the Life "Institute," etc is that they are not very good at adapting quickly to changed situations. From as soon as the Citizens Assembly vote made it clear that a referendum would be on the horizon they formed a plan to fight against any changes and a plan to fight back if they lost the referendum. Once it was decided that the referendum was for full repeal they thought they had a chance at winning and that any loss would be by a tiny margin. So their plan B was to get a dupe to take a court case and buy time while they used their mandate of nearly half the electorate to pressure politicians into delaying and diluting any legislation.

A few days before the referendum I drove past a huge Save the 8th stall collecting signatures for 'a petition against abortion.' At the time I thought it was weird as what was the purpose of that petition a few days before we voted. A few months before it would have been a way to gather names of potential volunteers for the campaign but that that point it could only be preparation to come out swinging after a Yes victory.

They have been preparing to fight legislation for abortion since before Repeal was voted for. They thought they'd be able to claim huge support from an enormous minority. They can't now, but they haven't adapted. They won't be able to delay or dilute legislation with a 2:1 loss because few politicians will go up against the majority of their constituency on this matter. But they are still going to continue on as they had planned despite the utterly changed landscape.

It's very, very stupid of them because they can't win and it means that Ireland is no longer this bastion of conservative values in the Western world. We may in fact be the opposite as abortion is likely to be heavily subsidised if not free and harassing women availing of the services will not be tolerated. Which may very likely mean that the fundamentalist Americans who have been pumping money into maintaining the status quo here will be less invested in fighting an unwinnable fight. Iona have still got a lot of money but they are probably going to see many of their income streams dry up. Wasting money now will only hasten their irrelevancy but they don't seem to be people blessed with a lot of cop on. They couldn't have run a more tone deaf campaign if they had deliberately tried. They are still claiming Maria Steen was the winner of the Claire Byrne debate when it's obvious now that she utterly failed in her actual objective of winning over undecided voters. They are continuing to spend money now as if their best income streams aren't at risk of being discontinued. They might be made up of well educated people but they really aren't very smart and will continue tilting at windmills until they fall over.

Pherekydes

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Most people refer to a developing human being in the womb as a baby. There is nothing "dumb" about it. Even medical professionals will.

Of course people who want a baby call the developing baby in utero a baby! Like duh! I did it on all of my own.

However, with women who are pregnant with unwanted babies or FFAs and who do not want to bring their baby to full term it's preferable to use the correct medical term.

That's the distinction the pro-birth side can't seem to make.

spookwoman

I thought we had seen the last of spuc about a decade ago. I remember they were still strong in the 1990's and having their odd poster up in Dublin but it looks like they are back now to help the no side because of the election loss. They were a nasty lot, very aggressive.
They were the ones that took Ivana Bacik and TCD Students union member to court in 1989 for giving out info on how to travel to the uk.
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/sunday-independent-ireland/20180527/282166471853299

I checked their twitter page and the sh*te they come out with is funny. They now say there are not enough children being born in Ireland.
https://twitter.com/spucprolife/status/1002598169673371649

Overheal

As if trying to keep afloat a global population of 8 billion is a wise choice. Especially when it has doubled in half a century - because that's sustainable growth...

Christy42

spookwoman wrote: »

I thought we had seen the last of spuc about a decade ago. I remember they were still strong in the 1990's and having their odd poster up in Dublin but it looks like they are back now to help the no side because of the election loss. They were a nasty lot, very aggressive.
They were the ones that took Ivana Bacik and TCD Students union member to court in 1989 for giving out info on how to travel to the uk.
https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/sunday-independent-ireland/20180527/282166471853299

I checked their twitter page and the sh*te they come out with is funny. They now say there are not enough children being born in Ireland.
https://twitter.com/spucprolife/status/1002598169673371649

Well if they feel not enough children are being born then I hope they are doing their bit!

Seriously though the birth rate is an entirely different issue. It should be fixed by encouraging couples to have more planned kids (subsidised care etc.). How more people don't see cause an effect of preventing people from being able to raise kids financially/time wise and less kids being born is quite frankly beyond me.

To see it abused for this shows how little of an argument they have.

Shurimgreat

Lots of posts here and not enough time to answer them all.

The Yes side continue to bring up mother and baby homes. These homes are all extinct because of A. Abortion and the like and B. Wider families no longer feel ashamed about single mothers which of course is a positive thing. Church, state and the people worked together in olden days in Ireland. Famillies dumped babies and mothers in these homes to get rid of them.

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage.

I suspect I could summarize most answers as follows by the way:
I post on boards.ie saying I hate the church yet I attend significant church occassions. Once they are over I go back to hating the church.

uptherebels

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage.

I'm not married, but if I do get married it will be a civil ceremony not any where near a church, I dont attend any ceremonies that are in in a church.

Don't have kids, but if/when I do, they won't have any religious sacraments until they are old enough to choose for themselves.

I don't attend a church for any reason.

I don't hate the church or any religious people, only have disdain for those that try to impose their religious beliefs on me or want a non secular society.
Edit.
Just to add, for someone who is supposedly atheist you seem infatuated with the church and people interaction with.

It wasnt me123

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church? Yes in Rome
Are your kids babtised? 1, yes to get into a school
Did they make their communion? yes because it was a catholic school
Are they confirmed? ditto above
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments? absolutely not. Once my daughter left national school she was allowed to make up her own mind.
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church? Yes, apart from anniversary masses, weddings and funerals. I go because respect for the dead, I'm asked to the wedding and to bury the dead.

.

When my daughter was born, to get into a local national school (in rural ireland, limited options) you had to be baptised. You had no option.

The sacrements are then run through the school and the children do them as part of the class. Very difficult for a child to opt out and be different. I didn't care if she did them or not.

Now she has a choice, I love that word. She says she is now an athiest, and I'm not far away from that also. She doesn't participate in any church ceremony unless specifically asked to attend.

I won't be having a catholic funeral, I have discussed it with my family. I plan on being cremated and scattered and no prayers.

What about you? In the interest of openess, are you going to answer your questions?

[Deleted User]

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

Firstly, I am not a church hater, I am aethist & have no time for any organised religions. I do however believe in people's right to practise whatever faith they see fit to.

I can answer the above, I am not married, if I ever do it won't be in a church.
Don't have kids, if I do, they won't be christened or any of the following. My niece & nephew are not & will not be.
I never attend church ceremonies, apart from funerals & weddings, & that is respect for the living people who invite me etc.

I believe people's attitude towards the church is because of the hypocrisy of that church over the years. For them to try & tell people what to do & their faux concern for women & children after what they put them through...... That's the issue. That's why people have a problem with the church.

How does an aethist have a problem with abortion anyway?

_Dara_

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Lots of posts here and not enough time to answer them all.

The Yes side continue to bring up mother and baby homes. These homes are all extinct because of A. Abortion and the like and B. Wider families no longer feel ashamed about single mothers which of course is a positive thing. Church, state and the people worked together in olden days in Ireland. Famillies dumped babies and mothers in these homes to get rid of them.

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage.

I suspect I could summarize most answers as follows by the way:
I post on boards.ie saying I hate the church yet I attend significant church occassions. Once they are over I go back to hating the church.

I had a civil wedding ceremony. They are growing in popularity year-on-year.

I don’t have children but if I did, they wouldn’t be raised in any religion.

If someone invites me to an event or has their funeral in a church, I’ll attend. That’s not my choice, it’s theirs. I don’t receive sacraments or say any of the prayers when attending.

spookwoman

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Lots of posts here and not enough time to answer them all.

The Yes side continue to bring up mother and baby homes. These homes are all extinct because of A. Abortion and the like and B. Wider families no longer feel ashamed about single mothers which of course is a positive thing. Church, state and the people worked together in olden days in Ireland. Famillies dumped babies and mothers in these homes to get rid of them.

So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest.

Were you married in a church?
Are your kids babtised?
Did they make their communion?
Are they confirmed?
Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments?
Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church?

I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage.

I suspect I could summarize most answers as follows by the way:
I post on boards.ie saying I hate the church yet I attend significant church occassions. Once they are over I go back to hating the church.

Not married and if I did it would not be in a church
No kids same wouldn't have them baptised, confirmed etc.
If I get invited to a wedding or anything I attend because I was asked. Attending is for them not for me.

I have little time for religion, I see it as something that has caused more wars and deaths than anything else. The church is also something that I see as a dictator trying to control the population. If someone wants to practice a religion that's their choice but I believe being a member of a religion should have about as much importance as being a member of a drama group. Religion should have no influence or say on politics, laws and how society should behave.

Shurimgreat

uptherebels wrote: »

I'm not married, but if I do get married it will be a civil ceremony not any where near a church, I dont attend any ceremonies that are in in a church.

Don't have kids, but if/when I do, they won't have any religious sacraments until they are old enough to choose for themselves.

I don't attend a church for any reason.

I don't hate the church or any religious people, only have disdain for those that try to impose their religious beliefs on me or want a non secular society.
Edit.
Just to add, for someone who is supposedly atheist you seem infatuated with the church and people interaction with.

Nope sorry its not me that's infatuated. Its everyone else. Its an Irish obsession with the church I don't get and something I was addressing. No-one I know has any time for the church except when they want the church wedding and nice setting for photos or church sacraments because its what others do.
Its a mob mentality.
And if there's one thing I dislike its those who follow a mob mentality.

Fighting Tao

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Nope sorry its not me that's infatuated. Its everyone else. Its an Irish obsession with the church I don't get and something I was addressing. No-one I know has any time for the church except when they want the church wedding and nice setting for photos or church sacraments because its what others do.
Its a mob mentality.
And if there's one thing I dislike its those who follow a mob mentality.

The only reason I see it needing addressing because of the church still wanting control over peoples lives.

Why do you think it need addressing?

Shurimgreat

bubblypop wrote: »

Firstly, I am not a church hater, I am aethist & have no time for any organised religions. I do however believe in people's right to practise whatever faith they see fit to.

I can answer the above, I am not married, if I ever do it won't be in a church.
Don't have kids, if I do, they won't be christened or any of the following. My niece & nephew are not & will not be.
I never attend church ceremonies, apart from funerals & weddings, & that is respect for the living people who invite me etc.

I believe people's attitude towards the church is because of the hypocrisy of that church over the years. For them to try & tell people what to do & their faux concern for women & children after what they put them through...... That's the issue. That's why people have a problem with the church.

How does an aethist have a problem with abortion anyway?

I'm an athiest but also not a church hater like you. I'm tolerant towards people's beliefs but I don't spend my time hating religions. People are entitled to believe what they like or not as we are in a free country.

To be for or against abortion has nothing to do with religion. People mostly come to personal conclusions on this.

spookwoman

and so it begins

Anti-abortion groups to target women at GPs
Anti-abortion activists are rushing to create “crisis pregnancy centres” that will target women seeking terminations in the Republic next year.

The revelation that activists have already started fundraising for such agencies, which will adopt tactics used by US anti-abortion groups, has led to cross-party calls for a ban on the harassment of women seeking abortions and medical staff performing them.

Up to 20 Irish anti-abortion activists will be flown to the US this summer to be trained in tactics including “pavement counselling”, which can involve harassing women trying to access abortions outside hospitals or clinics.

Activists have also started appealing for funds to set up crisis pregnancy clinics as near as possible to premises that will offer terminations in Ireland after the law is changed.…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/anti-abortion-groups-to-target-women-at-gps-crfjl8ltf

Fighting Tao

spookwoman wrote: »

and so it begins

Anti-abortion groups to target women at GPs
Anti-abortion activists are rushing to create “crisis pregnancy centres” that will target women seeking terminations in the Republic next year.

The revelation that activists have already started fundraising for such agencies, which will adopt tactics used by US anti-abortion groups, has led to cross-party calls for a ban on the harassment of women seeking abortions and medical staff performing them.

Up to 20 Irish anti-abortion activists will be flown to the US this summer to be trained in tactics including “pavement counselling”, which can involve harassing women trying to access abortions outside hospitals or clinics.

Activists have also started appealing for funds to set up crisis pregnancy clinics as near as possible to premises that will offer terminations in Ireland after the law is changed.…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/anti-abortion-groups-to-target-women-at-gps-crfjl8ltf

Hmm. If they are following the US model there may be grounds to arrest them on coming back into Ireland under anti-terrorism laws.

Shurimgreat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The only reason I see it needing addressing because of the church still wanting control over peoples lives.

Why do you think it need addressing?

They don't want control. People are free to turn their back on the church any time. The church state a position and its up to people to adhere to it or not.

My main point is for such hatred of the church, its still going strong. Very few people do not take sacraments for their children.

The church only survives because of the people.